Uttarakhand High Court
State Bank Of India vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 12 December, 2023
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 3266 OF 2023
12TH DECEMBER, 2023
State Bank of India .....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & others ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. Aditya Singh, learned
Additional Chief Standing
Counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Rakesh Thapliyal)
By the instant writ petition, the petitioner is praying
for the following reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.1 to
5 to provide assistance for taking the physical possession of
the secured asset (i.e. property of Bilal Rice Mill) as per the
provision of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 within some
stipulated time.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.1 to
5 to pay such amount compensation to the petitioner bank as
the Hon'ble Court deems fit for causing mental agony and
humiliation to the officials of the petitioner bank and for being
negligent and careless in discharging their duty".
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 (for short "Securitization Act") were initiated against
respondent nos.6 to 11. After initiating the process under the
Securitization Act, the Additional District Magistrate, Rampur,
State of Uttar Pradesh, passed an order on 19.03.2021, by
invoking the powers conferred under Section 14 of the
Securitization Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
despite the order dated 19.03.2021, passed by the Additional
District Magistrate, Rampur, no police assistance or force has
been provided to the authorities of the Bank, in order to
enable them to take possession over the mortgaged property,
which was later on auctioned. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that despite the order passed by
the Additional District Magistrate, Rampur, no proper
assistance are being given for execution of the order dated
19.03.2021.
4. Here the question is arise whether this Court has
the power to entertain this writ petition, and whether this
Court can issue a writ of mandamus to respondent nos.1 to 5,
who are the authorities of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
5. Undoubtedly, the Additional District Magistrate,
Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, passed the order by invoking the
powers under Section 14 of the Securitization Act.
6. A preliminary objection has been raised by the
learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 5 that this writ
petition is not maintainable since all the official respondents
are from the State of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, this Court has
no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. Even otherwise,
the order, which has been passed by invoking Section 14 of
the Securitization Act, is by an authority, which is from the
State of Uttar Pradesh.
7. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner wants
writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents in order to
implement and execute the order passed by the Additional
District Magistrate, Rampur, State of Uttar Pradesh, by
invoking Section 14 of the Securitization Act.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
since part of the cause of action arose in the State of
Uttarakhand, and entire action has been taken under
Securitization Act by issuing notice under Section 13(2),
followed by notice under Section 13(4) in the State of
Uttarakhand, therefore, in respect of the reliefs, as sought by
the petitioner, writ petition is maintainable.
9. I do not agree with the arguments advanced by Mr.
Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. The order
dated 19.03.2021 has been passed by the Additional District
Magistrate, Rampur, State of Uttar Pradesh, and not by the
authority of the State of Uttarakhand. Therefore, no writ of
mandamus can be issued to respondent nos.1 to 5, who are,
undoubtedly, the authorities of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
10. For the reasons stated above, the present writ
petition is thoroughly misconceived and not maintainable, and
the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
11. However, petitioner is given liberty to approach the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for the appropriate
reliefs.
12. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.)
Dated: 12th December, 2023
NISHANT
